Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hank who wrote (4284)	10/9/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Hank, if GUMM's management ever were to be found to be "fraudulent promoters" I would be happy to return to the thread and apologize for defending them. I do not consider that likelihood to be in the realm of the possible. If the stock simply is unable to distinguish its product from the others and the stock price languishes, I would be willing to acknowledge that I was wrong for being too bullish.... At what point would Wexler acknowledge that perhaps he had made a mistake about GUMM?

To: Hank who wrote (4284)	10/9/1999 1:44:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 10293

Hank, I don't have a problem with anyone being short a stock that I'm long or discussing it in a mature and professional manner. Falsely accusing a company's management of fraud is not consistent with this. There are many ways that one can get their point across about a company without alleging criminal actions that don't exist. Contrary to the belief of some here, fraud means the intent to deceive. When used in the context of a stock fraud, or when someone has directly accused another person of fraud, they are alleging criminal acts. I will never apologize to Bill for his allegations even if the clinical studies come back inconclusive and GUMM falls a few points. In this case he would be right about the stock price, but wrong about the reason. GumTech management is not deceiving anyone. Call them and talk to them for God's sake and see for yourself. You should ask Bill and others that have alleged and condoned his fraud claims if they will apologize. How honorable are they? <However, when I see you posting ridiculous speculations about the price of GUMM rising to $50 or $100 per share based on questionable clinical results that aren't even out yet> Do you think that a market cap of ~$400 million to $750 million is high for a company that would have the only product on the market worldwide that could claim it prevents the common cold? What is questionable about the clinical study? Are you taking an issue with the manner in which it is being conducted?